Animal Rights Violations Part 5
April 28, 2008
Much of the public is confused about what animal rights means. So, rather than try to explain it with complex theory I’ve opted to do a short series here of examples of animal rights violations. Hopefully this can elucidate animal rights for anyone who wants to learn:
- “On April 22, a 4-month-old German shepherd-mix puppy was found stabbed, beaten and stuffed in a plastic bag on a North Memphis driveway. The puppy, who is now known as Mack, was barely alive. A steak knife was embedded in his back, with only the handle protruding, and his face was spray painted red. Mack underwent immediate surgery and was listed in critical condition at the time of this release,” reports the HSUS. They are offering a reward for information.
- “United Illuminating has issued an eviction notice against monk parakeets nesting on their power poles[...] moving the nests now is particularly cruel since it is breeding season[...] they’re doomed, why would you smash the life out of baby chicks?” reports Friends of Animals. In my opinion, the right way to remove nests is to contract a pro-animal group to do it. And then build an alternative nesting location so the birds don’t build nests there next year. When the power company does it, they have a conflict of interest that makes it more difficult for them to treat the birds kindly even if they wanted to.
- “Queenie, a long-haired black cat, was found fatally hanged from a tree near South Hills Terrace on April 17.” reports the HSUS.
- “Claiming that Chloe the dog had been coming toward him while on his property in March 2008, William Helms reportedly stated that he shot her once and that she then ran off toward a nearby creek. [...] The physical evidence indicates that Chloe was shot 3 times from behind after she had left Helms’ property.” reports ALDF, emphasis added. They are calling for action in the form of letters to the district attorney.
- “The U.S. government continues to fund shockingly cruel, outdated, and inaccurate animal experiments to test the effects of nicotine—even though studies of humans conducted years ago showed that smoking cigarettes can cause disease in nearly every organ of the human body,” reports PETA.
- “Approximately 100 million pigs are raised and slaughtered in the U.S. every year. As babies, they are subjected to painful mutilations without anesthesia or pain relievers. Their tails are cut off to minimize tail biting, an aberrant behavior that occurs when these highly-intelligent animals are kept in deprived factory farm environments. In addition, notches are taken out of the piglets’ ears for identification,” reports Farm Sanctuary.
- “[Homelessness] is a massive problem in the developing world, affecting hundreds of millions of animals, and our global affiliate Humane Society International has a Street Animal Welfare program to develop humane care, spay and neuter, and vaccination programs.” reports Wayne Pacelle.
The good news:
- “The state and federal groups have announced that the Kofa NWR lions have a one year reprieve from being hunted via radio collars.” reports Invisible Voices.
By the way, you can take one action to save hundreds of animals’ lives, promote peace and compassion, and make a strong political statement against cruelty to animals. That single action is to go vegan.
Comments
6 Responses to “Animal Rights Violations Part 5”
1 Trackbacks to “Animal Rights Violations Part 5”
- What Are Animal Rights? : Elaine Vigneault on April 29th, 2008 8:11 am
[...] Animal Rights Violations Part 5 [...]
Got something to say?
Links
- Vegan Outreach
- Binary Blonde
- Feminist Majority
- Angry for a Reason
- Bookish
- blactivegan
- Feminist Review
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Vegan Soapbox
- Itchmo
- Trailer Park Feminist
- Pithy Bitch
- On Human-Nonhuman Relations
- Better Late Than Never
- ProBlogger
- Animal Friendly Life
- Shakesville
- Green Is The New Red
- Finally Feminism 101
- Random Inanity
- Green Party
- View Entire Blogroll
Important Message:
Order a FREE vegetarian starter kit at GoVeg.com
It is impossible to confer “rights” on an animal. Rights as we understand them involve responsibility, and cognizance of said rights, neither of which is possible with animals. Animal welfare and good stewardship of animals generally is of course a different matter. It only serves to muddy the waters to use the phrase “animal rights”.
One should be clear of one’s analysis before one aims to “elucidate”.
Jeananne,
We confer rights to human infants, too, who are not able to understand rights. So, you assumption is lacking. The ability to understand rights is not necessary for possession of said rights.
Furthermore, there are variety of rights. I’m not talking about the right to own property or the right to bear arms, I’m talking about the right not to be the property of someone else, the right not to be enslaved. And I’m talking about the right to be free from torture or human-caused suffering.
Certainly, there are overlaps in regards to animal welfare. Animal cruelty is wrong from both a rights perspective and a welfare perspective. The difference is that the welfare perspective is concerned with human treatment of animals whereas the rights perspective is concerned with human use and ownership of animals.
I do not advocate “good stewardship”. I advocate abolition of the property status of animals.
Hmmm…..where to start….
If you “advocate abollition of the property status of animals”, how do you reconcile (rationalize?) having all those cute pets I see in your profile? Why aren’t you leading by example? Are they free to leave if they choose? If one of them took a fancy to me, and followed me home, would you stop him?
As far as the rights issue goes, I have limited time, so I will direct you here http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html The last 3 paragraphs say it very well. There is also a brilliant book called Adam’s Task you may (if you’re open-minded enough) find fascinating.
Lastly - my rights as an American citizen, as stated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, are inalienable, confered by God and upheld by the State. What root system does your concept of “animal rights” come from?
Jeananne,
Since your time is limited, I suggest you start here:
http://animal-rights.net/ar-faq/
When you have more time, check out:
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/
http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspot.com/
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/
http://www.compassionatecooks.com/
http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/
http://thestartingpointisveganism.blogspot.com/
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/
http://www.veganfreaks.org/
http://vegan-abolitionist.blogspot.com/ specifically his most recent essay: http://vegan-abolitionist.blogspot.com/2008/04/explanation-of-rights.html
Regarding my “cute pets”:
They are all rescues. Humans created a situation that made these animals dependent on humans for survival. I have accepted the responsibility for these five. They are only property in the eyes of the law. To me, they are family.
(One way to tell the difference between someone who views their companion animals as property or someone who views them as family: ask how much they’re willing to spend to save their animal’s life. If they answer with a dollar amount, there’s a good chance the animal is property. If they answer, “I’ll do whatever is in my power to sustain a quality life” then the animal is probably family.)
They’re self-evident.
The fact that we need cages and fences to contain animals suggest they have wills of their own that that those wills do not match human desire. Moreover, having shared my life with plenty of creatures, I’ve gotten to know their personalities and can surely tell you that they are sentient beings who experience physical pain and emotional pain. I need no God or state to prove this to me. I know it from my experience and my capacity to think and empathize.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Elaine, hang on just a sec - again, as in the first post I originally responded to, you seem to be laboring under the assumption that people generally (and now me, in specific) need you to educate them. Now, while I certainly learn from people of all stripes every day of my life, and am eager and open to learning, you do not have to “reinvent the wheel” for me in this area; I am quite conversant in “animal rights”, veganism, etc etc ad infinitum. I have been, at various points in my life, vegetarian, vegan, macrobiotic, and for a period of several years considered myself “an animal rights activist”. I have read Tom Regan, Peter Singer, and Ingrid Newkirk, among many others. I was a member of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society in the 1970’s, just to give you an idea how far back my acquaintance with these issues go. So, there’s no need for all the blogs and websites - the only reason I pointed you toward a website was for a specific answer that I didn’t want to bother typing out.
OK, so now maybe things are a little clearer, and I will answer the rest of the post tomorrow :-)
OK, sorry. Most people are very ignorant about animal rights, so I made a wrong assumption about you.
To clarify my position: Ideally, I think there should be no human interference with animals. However, since we’ve historically interfered with animals to a point of no return for some animals, I’m OK with some interference, when it takes the best assumption of the animal’s interests into account and weighs them as we would weigh human interests.
Essentially, I am against oppression and domination. Often, difference is used as the justification for oppression. Whites are different than Blacks, men are different than women, Americans are different than Iraqis, etc. i reject that premise. Difference is not a justification for anything. So what if I’m smarter than my dog? That doesn’t mean that gives me the right to eat him or to test shampoo on him or do anything against his will that isn’t in his best interests. However, here’s where that acceptable interference I suggested earlier comes in, since I am smarter than him, I can assume I am a better guardian for him than if he were out in the wild. In that respect, I treat him as though he had the rights of a human child. (That’s not to say I treat him as a child.)
Likewise, I reject the justification that we should because we can. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Just because we can trick fish into biting into hooks and just because we can trick bears and foxes into stepping into traps, doesn’t mean we should. We should only interfere when a) it’s in their best interest, like in a rescue or b) when our essential needs conflict with their interests, for example, if we’re starving and there is absolutely no other food, then fishing or hunting is permissible., in my opinion (not that I would, I’m not sure I could). So, for example, taste and desire for knowledge are not essential needs and do not justify infringement upon animals’ freedom.